Going from 1080p to Retina

[Dydegu]

I'm planning to upgrade from a Dell Studio XPS which has a 1080p resolution to a rMBP (hopefully after they're unveiled at WWDC).

I have a Canon 6D and edit in Lightroom. My screen size will stay the same (15"), but how much of a difference / game changer will a retina screen be for me?

 

[keysofanxiety]

I have a Canon 6D and edit in Lightroom. My screen size will stay the same (15"), but how much of a difference / game changer will a retina screen be for me?

It'll make a massively positive difference IMO.

 

[brewmonkey]

Agreed - difference between 1080p and retina on the rMBP 15 (2880x1800) is substantial. I have a very hard time looking at non-retina type displays now after getting so used to to them. Also, OS X's scaling works extremely well at this point (makes it look like 1440x900).

But don't take our word for it. Go see for yourself at any store.

Edit: also, 16:10 vs 16:9 is another big selling point for me. I'd actually even rather have 3:2 if I had my way.

 

[Dydegu]

Agreed - difference between 1080p and retina on the rMBP 15 (2880x1800) is substantial. I have a very hard time looking at non-retina type displays now after getting so used to to them. Also, OS X's scaling works extremely well at this point (makes it look like 1440x900).

But don't take our word for it. Go see for yourself at any store.

Edit: also, 16:10 vs 16:9 is another big selling point for me. I'd actually even rather have 3:2 if I had my way.

I always have a hard time processing scaling. I understand 1440x900 is half of 2880x1800, but what does that mean in practice?

Also, what's the difference in practice between 16:10 and 16:9?

 

[jgelin]

I understand 1440x900 is half of 2880x1800, but what does that mean in practice?

With 1440 It means you have less pixels to make an image, as such the pixels tend to be bigger since they are still taking up the same amount of physical screen real estate (still 15" mBP), however, since they are bigger they are unable to render details as fine and as sharp. Having more pixels like 2880 means that each one must be much smaller than its predecessors to fit so many into the same 15" package, thus less space between each and a sharper more crisp image.
[doublepost=1462559440][/doublepost]

I have a very hard time looking at non-retina type displays now after getting so used to to them

I agree, both my iMac and my Air are non-Retina. My iPP, Watch, and iPhone all are Retina and boy can one tell the difference when reading text. Even as I type this the un-smoothness of the 1080p shows on the letters compared to what it would look like on a Retina device. I certainly see a rMBP and a 5K iMac in my upgrade plans, not solely because of screen resolution but rather as a big incentive to the performance gains.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I always have a hard time processing scaling. I understand 1440x900 is half of 2880x1800, but what does that mean in practice?

Also, what's the difference in practice between 16:10 and 16:9?

Aspect ratio. Your Tv is almost certinly 16:9.
16:10 means a shorter rectangle basicly.
I like 16:9 if your just using one screen as you have your image with the sliders down one side.
If it's a two screen set up (like I use), then I think 16:10 is better for photography. I couldn't photo edit on a laptop though.

 

[robgendreau]

I always have a hard time processing scaling. I understand 1440x900 is half of 2880x1800, but what does that mean in practice?

Also, what's the difference in practice between 16:10 and 16:9?

Sorta like the difference between a 3.6MB image and a 7.3MB image.

Or think of it this way. You've got a 4000x3000 pixel image from you nice camera. You wanna pixel peep and see it at 1:1, or one image pixel for one display pixel. That would all fit into a 5k iMac screen at 1:1 almost, with just a bit cut off. But on an old iMac at 1:1 it's gonna be WAY bigger, and you'd have to scroll like crazy to review the whole image, since it can only "hold" 2560x1440 at 1:1.

The key is pixel density, Pixels Per Inch. Way more of them in a 27" retina imac (7.3 million) vs an old imac (3.6m) even though both are 27".

But it's even cooler that that. Cuz now with retina the Mac OS uses hiDPI graphics, so an icon on an old iMac and on a retina iMac BOTH are say 1cm2. But the retina icon is 4x the number of pixels. Sort of like the difference between enlarging a 35mm slide to 8x10 vs a medium format slide to 8x10.

 

[campyguy]

My screen size will stay the same (15"), but how much of a difference / game changer will a retina screen be for me?

I run a small company. I also wear glasses.

At my home and main office, I use 1 or two Dell 27-inch 4k displays with my late-2013 rMBP, used at 1080p/1440p most of the time and 4k while watching videos or viewing/reviewing CAD drawings. At one field office, there's a 40 inch Toshiba HDTV and an older Dell laptop.

The difference - to me - comparing the rMBP to the Dell is like comparing my high-res displays to the Toshiba HDTV. Get a pair of glasses, then look at something and take note of it in your mind. Then, head to the kitchen, grab your bottle of olive oil - pour a couple of drops on your finger and smear a thin coat of it on your glasses then look again at your subject, and I'll bet it's a bit "blurry".

Yep, that's what it's like going back to the Dell laptop after time with my Retina Display...

 

[brewmonkey]

I always have a hard time processing scaling. I understand 1440x900 is half of 2880x1800, but what does that mean in practice?

Also, what's the difference in practice between 16:10 and 16:9?

Others have done a fine job describing scaling and aspect ratio, so I won't say much beyond that. Below, however, are some additional references I found very informative on these subjects, if you're interested.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5996/how-the-retina-display-macbook-pro-handles-scaling

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/6

A nifty chart showing how 16:9 compares to 16:10 is below. With rMBP's 16:10 display, I really like the additional vertical desktop real estate. Notice the two largest boxes in the chart - each are 1920 pixels wide, but the 1200p (16:10) display shows how much extra vertical real estate you get over 1080p (16:9).

https://lrpctech.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/rez-chart.jpg

 

[Dydegu]

Thank you all!

 

[OreoCookie]

I always have a hard time processing scaling. I understand 1440x900 is half of 2880x1800, but what does that mean in practice?

In practice it means that text is nice, crisp and large so that you can read it without a loupe. But if you open images, you'll make use of all the extra pixels. It looks very similar to a photo print on screen. For photographers, a Retina screen is a giant upgrade.